Where’s the EASY Button? Uncovering E-Book Usability

IF 0.1 4区 管理学 Q2 Social Sciences Reference & User Services Quarterly Pub Date : 2019-12-11 DOI:10.5860/rusq.59.1.7224
K. Mueller, E. Owens, Zach Valdes, Cole Williamson
{"title":"Where’s the EASY Button? Uncovering E-Book Usability","authors":"K. Mueller, E. Owens, Zach Valdes, Cole Williamson","doi":"10.5860/rusq.59.1.7224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"E-book platforms have multiplied among vendors and publishers, complicating not only acquisitions and collection development decisions, but also the user experience. Using a methodology of task-based user testing, the researchers sought to measure and compare user performance of eight common tasks on nine e-book platforms: EBSCO eBooks, ProQuest Ebook Central, Gale Virtual Reference Library (GVRL), Oxford Reference, Safari Books Online, IGI Global, CRCnetBASE, Springer Link, and JSTOR. Success and failure rates per task, average time spent per task, and user comments were evaluated to gauge the usability of each platform. Findings indicate that platforms vary widely in terms of users’ ability and speed in completing known-item searches, navigation tasks, and identification of specialized tools, with implications for library acquisition and user instruction decisions. Results also suggest several key vendor design recommendations for an optimal user experience. The study did not aim to declare a “winning” platform, and all the platforms tested demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses in different aspects, but overall performance and user preference favored ProQuest’s Ebook Central platform.","PeriodicalId":45353,"journal":{"name":"Reference & User Services Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reference & User Services Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.59.1.7224","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

E-book platforms have multiplied among vendors and publishers, complicating not only acquisitions and collection development decisions, but also the user experience. Using a methodology of task-based user testing, the researchers sought to measure and compare user performance of eight common tasks on nine e-book platforms: EBSCO eBooks, ProQuest Ebook Central, Gale Virtual Reference Library (GVRL), Oxford Reference, Safari Books Online, IGI Global, CRCnetBASE, Springer Link, and JSTOR. Success and failure rates per task, average time spent per task, and user comments were evaluated to gauge the usability of each platform. Findings indicate that platforms vary widely in terms of users’ ability and speed in completing known-item searches, navigation tasks, and identification of specialized tools, with implications for library acquisition and user instruction decisions. Results also suggest several key vendor design recommendations for an optimal user experience. The study did not aim to declare a “winning” platform, and all the platforms tested demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses in different aspects, but overall performance and user preference favored ProQuest’s Ebook Central platform.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
EASY按钮在哪里?揭示电子书的可用性
电子书平台在供应商和出版商之间成倍增加,不仅使收购和收藏开发决策复杂化,还使用户体验复杂化。使用基于任务的用户测试方法,研究人员试图测量和比较九个电子书平台上八项常见任务的用户表现:EBSCO电子书、ProQuest Ebook Central、Gale虚拟参考图书馆(GVRL)、Oxford Reference、Safari Books Online、IGI Global、CRCnetBASE、Springer Link和JSTOR。评估每个任务的成功率和失败率、每个任务花费的平均时间以及用户评论,以衡量每个平台的可用性。研究结果表明,在用户完成已知物品搜索、导航任务和识别专用工具的能力和速度方面,平台差异很大,这对图书馆获取和用户指导决策有影响。结果还提出了几个关键的供应商设计建议,以获得最佳的用户体验。这项研究的目的并不是宣布一个“获胜”的平台,所有测试的平台都在不同方面展示了优势和劣势,但总体性能和用户偏好都支持ProQuest的Ebook Central平台。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reference & User Services Quarterly
Reference & User Services Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Reference & User Services Quarterly is the official journal of the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association. Its purpose is to disseminate information of interest to reference librarians, information specialists, and other professionals involved in user-oriented library services. This Web site serves as an online companion to the print edition.
期刊最新文献
Information Literacy and Instruction: Using Universal Design for Instruction to Make Library Instruction Accessible The Alert Collector: Scams and Flimflam: The Other True Crime Information Literacy and Instruction: Building a Multi-Format Graduate Student Information Literacy Program Readers’ Advisory: Readers’ Advisory and the Pandemic: Lessons, Connections, and Vital Services Amplify Your Impact: Reframing Reference as Outreach: Expanding Engagement and Inclusion Through Reference Services
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1